Editing restrictions for new editors: All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab–Israeli conflict.

Limit of one revert in 24 hours: All articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related.

If an edit is reverted by another editor, its original author may not restore it within 24 hours of the revert.

All Arab–Israeli conflict-related pages, broadly interpreted, are subject to discretionary sanctions: Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial notification.

Further information

The exceptions to the 500/30 restriction are:

Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may use the Talk: namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. Talk pages where disruption occurs may be managed by any of the above methods. This exception does not apply to other internal project discussions such as AfDs, WikiProjects, noticeboard discussions, etc.

Editors who are not eligible to be extended-confirmed may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles by editors who do not meet the criteria is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring.

Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

This is a synthesized article that pushes a POV that Hamas is engaged in a "terror campaign". What was dishonestly portrayed as something from Ma'an that these events are part of a "terror campaign" is actually Ma'an reporting what "a top Israeli security official said". nableezy - 23:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The article includes numerous sources, including a Wall Street Journal article which note the recent uptick in terror activity. Not entirely sure what exactly is your bone of contention. Also, you may want to avoid using words like "dishonestly" in your comments when the target of your comment is easily discernible. --brewcrewer(yada, yada) 00:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

To your last request, no. The phrasing that Ma'an said that Hamas ordered the military wing to begin "terror attacks" was dishonest and blatantly misrepresented the source. This "terror campaign" exists in the mind of a Shin Bet official and a Wikipedia article. That does not make it acceptable as an encyclopedia article. nableezy - 00:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy, there are lots more sources available. Including direct quotations form Hamas leaders. If you don't like the source I used, add some more sources. You may be horrified to read what Hamas leaders are actually saying. At least, I was horrified by the large crowds in Gaza cheering the news of Israeli cililians shot to death at point blank range. Today they shot a pregnant woman. This is a terror campaign and since Hamas is not denying that it is behind these murders, I don't quite understand why you are.AMuseo (talk) 00:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I may not be up with current trends, but last time I looked the words "terror" and "terrorism" were generally considered POV on this project, is that no longer the case? Gatoclass (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

"Terrorist" is a potentially contentious label and should be used with caution per WP:LABEL. "Terrorism" is simply a type of violence. I'm not aware of any policy that considers the term POV, and I don't see why there would be one. Kind of like the difference between "racist" and "racism", I guess. "Racist" is a WP:WTW, but it would certainly be sad if the word "racism" were banned on Wikipedia because it signifies a phenomenon widely considered to be morally reprehensible. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 18:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, terrorism is simply a term that describes a certain type of violence. WP:NPOV requires us to use the actual words for things and not selective euphemisms. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

But as it says in the terrorism article, what constitutes terrorism is uncertain, after all "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". Surely for this to be a "terror campaign" it must be orchestrated by terrorists? As the article says, the aim of the attacks is to derail peace talks rather than to create fear as the word terror implies. Your comparison with racism is different because that can be clearly defined, unlike terrorism. It is indisputable that there have bee attacks/has been violence, which is why I think a title like this would be better than the current one. Smartse (talk) 00:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Terrorism is actually a far more definite term than racism. Surely for something to constitute racism, it must be orchestrated by racists (another WP:WTW)? One man's racist is another man's patriot, etc. The same is true of any morally loaded word - murder, rape, assault - but we don't avoid using them when they are the proper terms. The violence hasn't been just any violence, e.g. domestic violence or violence against animals, but organized violence targeting civilians with a stated political goal. The word for this type of violence is terrorism, which is presumably why the reliable sources I've seen cited in this article call it that. Fear is not terrorism's end goal (that would be a silly goal) but its characteristic means of reaching that goal. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 00:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I should point out that per WP:LABEL, such labels "are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution". There is no in-text attribution in this article, and of course no way to use it in a title, so there is an obvious question mark over the use of this term here.

I don't think it's appropriate to name the article Palestinian terror campaign, either, since it suggests that Palestinians in general are behind it, when in fact it is apparently a temporary alliance of certain militant groups. Gatoclass (talk) 05:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hamas is a widely-recognized terrorist organization as well as less-popular movements like Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine. 2010 Palestinian political violence is laughable at best. There is nothing inherently political about Hamas' political towards Israel. Hamas is a terrorist organization, not a political action committee. I agree terrorism is a buzzword but this is an announced campaign of terror. Personally, there isn't anything unique about this article because Hamas initiates the same campaign every time peace talks come around. Just saber-rattling IMO. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I had a look through several of the sources and noted that none of them referred to these attacks specifically as a "terror" campaign. If media outlets are avoiding the term, why should we be employing it? I don't like the euphemism "political violence" either, but there must be other alternatives. "2010 Palestinian militant attacks" might be one alternative. Gatoclass (talk) 10:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘2010 Palestinian militant attacks sounds good to me. I noticed that the Irish Times article ([1]) makes no mention of "terror" and IMO we should judge this to be a more neutral source than the Israeli media, who are obviously more likely to label it terrorism. Smartse (talk) 15:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with dropping terrorist from title, campaign could be reaction as far as I care. I'm not sure about "Palestinian militants" I guess Abbas loyal militants were not involved in violence, sources note PA opposition. However I think it is crucial to mention 2010 direct talks, since sources mention that this is part of "the topic". AgadaUrbanit (talk) 16:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Sources does not say shells fired at September 15 was part of a "2010 Hamas terror campaign" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

so what would you like to suggest the article be named?--brewcrewer(yada, yada) 01:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I see no OR in the wording. The section should be expanded though. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 01:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

What source says that shells fired at September 15 was part of a "2010 Hamas terror campaign" ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

so what would you like to suggest the article be named?--brewcrewer(yada, yada) 01:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

In this section we are talking about that there are no sources saying that shells fired at September 15 was part of a "2010 Hamas terror campaign" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

are you suggesting that we cannot introduce any content unless its source includes the words "2010 Hamas terror campaign"? --brewcrewer(yada, yada) 02:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I am suggesting that someone shows me a source that says that the shells fired at September 15 was part of a "2010 Hamas terror campaign" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not WP:OR to say terrorist attacks are part of what WP:RS call a terror campaign. Move on to next fight. LibiBamizrach (talk) 02:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Well if it is not original research, then show me the source that say that shells fired at September 15 was part of a "2010 Hamas terror campaign" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

keep repeat yourself some more. just because you ignore people who answer you does not mean you are right. source does not have to say "2010 Hamas terror campaign" to belong here. LibiBamizrach (talk) 12:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Well if sources does not say "2010 Hamas terror campaign", then what does it have to do with this article which is about "2010 Hamas terror campaign" ? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

as said before by me and other editor, shells fired were terrorist attack. terrorist, you understand? and they are fired on september 15. in year 2010, you understand? and then obviously it is part of terror campaign in 2010. i cannot be anymore clear than this. LibiBamizrach (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

What sources say that the shells fired at September 15 was part of the terror campaign in 2010? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

as said before by me and other editor, shells fired were terrorist attack. terrorist, you understand? and they are fired on september 15. in year 2010, you understand? and then obviously it is part of terror campaign in 2010. i cannot be anymore clear than this. LibiBamizrach (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You have failed to show me sources that say shells fired at September 15 was part of Hamas campaign. OR: "The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources." [2] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

i don't need to find you source with identical name, as other editor already said to you. it seems you ignore arguments that people make because you have no come back and just pick on minor details about something else. please stop this and try collaborate to improve wikipedia. as editor brewcrewer stated already, many RS talk about this systematic terrorist attacks by hamas and this shelling is perfect example. do you want to propose different name for this systematic terror attacks? i am welcome your suggestions to consider. LibiBamizrach (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) it has as much to do with this article as anything else in the article that is referenced to a source that does either use "2010 Hamas terror campaign." the point is that there clearly is a "campaign." what to call this campaign is up for debate. however you cannot demand that we come up with a name that is shared by each and every single source that discussed the campaign. otherwise we will have an article without a name.--brewcrewer(yada, yada) 14:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Whatever name that is used for it, what sources say that the shells fired at September 15 was part of any Hamas "campaign" at all? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

(od) In just one article I see numerous quotes that tie the incidents to a campaign, including:

"wave of increased terror"

"'As soon as the diplomatic process began, we made preparations for the eventuality that extremist elements, especially Hamas, would attempt to inflame the situation and launch terrorist attacks,' Danino said. 'Unfortunately, our preparations were founded on the correct assumption.'"

"IDF predicts wave of rockets from Strip, including 10 yesterday, will end after Succot"

There is a connection but it has been mentioned by a few editors that a rename would be appropriate. This would be inline with NPOV and would squash any arguments of SYNTH (obviously a campaign/wave of violence but "terror" is not always mentioned)Cptnono (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I read that piece as suggesting there was some doubt over the authenticity of the statements. It would certainly be better if a less equivocal source were found. Gatoclass (talk) 06:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that the scope of the article should be broadened to include the Israeli attacks on Palestinians. E.g this BBC article mentions a Hamas commander being killed and this CSM article (already used) mentions one Palestinian being killed and four others being wounded. To me the article is at present very one-sided by only dealing with Israeli casualties (obviously the article will have to be renamed accordingly but I think that this too is necessary). Here's another BBC article. Any thoughts? Smartse (talk) 15:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a good point. Can't think of an appropriate new name for the article ATM though. Gatoclass (talk) 16:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The scope of the article as is should be fine since it meets GNG. A response/backlash section could be added if those attacks are directly related. Cptnono (talk) 22:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying that this isn't notable, I'm saying that the article should be broadened so that it is about the current conflict, rather than just attacks against Israelis. Smartse (talk) 22:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Violent actions by the IDF can be added if they are responses to aspects of the terror campaign. This shouldn't entail any change in the title. Violent IDF actions that aren't responses to aspects of the terror campaign don't belong in this article. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Unless the IDF opens up a unilateral front against Palestinians similar to the Gaza War, tit-for-tat styled responses don't belong here. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

So we cover one side of a conflict but not the other? Doesn't seem very neutral to me. Smartse (talk) 11:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

We should cover surge of violence related to "this topic", maybe September 11 attacks format could be a good guideline. It has Aftermath and includes sub-chapters like Immediate response and Military operations following the attacks. I guess it would be neutral. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 11:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I support a move but your proposal is too wordy and awkward. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The title is still pretty stupid. What about 2010 Palestinian militancy campaign or Hamas militancy 2010. Obviously the campaign is inspired by the 2010 direct talks, but this is how the Palestinians have always worked. Peace talks are simply a pretext to justify more conflict. And there isn't any sound data to say a unique, independent campaign separate from the on-going conflict has been established as a "reaction" to the peace talks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Ban Ki-moonstated on September 1: This attack must be recognized for what it is: a cynical and blatant attempt to undermine the direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations starting tomorrow.AgadaUrbanit (talk) 02:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

So? Yes, Hamas is trying to sabotage the negotiations, but this has been a goal since the get-go. One could infer Hamas' entire existence is predicated on preventing a resolution to the conflict. We don't know if this is a systematic campaign or general uprising against the peace talks. Either way, I really don't like the "reaction" in the title. Reminds of List articles. I personally prefer 2010 Palestinian militancy campaign and then the intro can reflect the peace talk circumstances. The ambiguity will allow us to expand the article to include events that might go beyond the scope of peace talk-related violence. Wikifan12345 (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikifan, I hear what you say. I'm not into terminology wars, especially for titles, which clearly should burn in hell together with infoboxes. I have no strong feelings about reaction. However, direct talks, imho, are part of context: negotiations can only be stopped by a barrage of bullets. I'll try to get some sleep now ;) AgadaUrbanit (talk) 03:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Support the current title I think the title at present - 2010 Palestinian militancy campaign is neutral and accurately describes the events. Smartse (talk) 11:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I (weakly) support the current title, it's not ideal but it's more policy-compliant than the alternative. Gatoclass (talk) 20:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The article should be moved ASAP back to the stable version, 2010 Palestinian terror campaign. 2010 Palestinian militancy campaign is an interesting idea, but "militancy campaign" is an obscure to non-existent term ([4]) and is not used by any of the sources of this article. "Terror campaign" is the term used to refer to such things. As I explained above, WP:LABEL is not really an issue here, because "terrorism", as opposed to "terrorist", is not a label, contentious or otherwise, but simply the term for a particular type of violence; similar to how "racism", as opposed to "racist", is simply the term for a particular outlook on people. Procedurally, it was improper to move the page to 2010 Palestinian militancy campaign in the firstplace, as it was clear that there was no consensus for this.Jalapenos do exist (talk) 22:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

That's just semantics. If you call an act "terrorism", then clearly you are labelling the perpetrators as terrorists. Gatoclass (talk) 23:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I already explained why that's not true and not relevant. Since this is the second time on this talk page that you've responded to my comments in a way that indicates that you haven't really read them, I don't really want to continue "dicussing" with you. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I did read your comment, I just happened to disagree with it. You are of course free to ignore my responses, but you are only putting yourself at a disadvantage by doing so. Gatoclass (talk) 09:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Support a title change I'm not sure if the one proposed is the best solution but some sort of change is needed. Not all of the sources say "terror" but they do make it clear that here is a campaign/wave of attacks. It would cut down on the knee-jerk reaction to perceived POV concerns and would put it slighty more inline with our NPOV standards.Cptnono (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I looked at the source, it does not say that: "Mahmoud al-Zahar has explained that the shootings of Israeli civilians are a legitimate means of conquering all of the land that is now the state of Israel." Please do not remove the tag until you can prove that this is true. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be based on "Al-Zahar said liberating all the land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River is both a moral and religious duty for Muslims and armed resistance (a euphemism for terror attacks) is the way to defeat the occupiers." which is in the source. I think the current wording is twisting these words as it does not mention civilians or it being legitimate. Based on WP:V#Burden of evidence: "Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living persons or organizations, and do not move it to the talk page" I'm going to remove it. Please make sure if you replace this with another sentence, that it accurately reflects what the source states. Smartse (talk) 00:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Woopsy, I need to sleep, didn't notice the quote afterwards - that was still an unacceptable way to use the source and I have changed the text to reflect what the source actually states. Smartse (talk) 00:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

There's a little problem. The campaign as defined in the article was the result of a pact between 13 Palestinian groups who (according to he references) came together on 2 September 2010. Therefore events prior to that could not have logically been part of the campaign (unless you want to redefine the "campaign"). Therefore the two shooting attacks in sections 2.1 and 2.2 do not belong in the article. Please tell me if anyone objects to removing those sections. Of course these and other events could be mentioned in the article by way of context, but doing so would open the article up to including any variety of recent or not-so-recent events of relevance, probably not a good idea. Interferometrist (talk) 21:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The press conference was on 2 September, but presumably the coalition was formed before the press conference. This explains why the sources refer to the first two shooting attacks as part of the campaign. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 21:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The sources say they are part of the coordinated effort. Hamas was doing these before September 2 regardless of he announcement of the groups coming together.Cptnono (talk) 21:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess this is somewhat ambiguous, since we don't know when any meeting actually occurred. But there has been no suggestion that any group other than Hamas was involved with those two earlier attacks. And those must have been planned at least a bit in advance. Are they really part of a coordinated campaign by 13 groups? Is this even an actual "campaign" or just an instance of bravado? Interferometrist (talk) 21:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Well the lead might need some word smithing then. Those attacks are clearly wihtin the scope of this article.Cptnono (talk) 21:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you write that then, in a way that I could believe the article and its internal logic. The more I look into it, the more I doubt that there was an actual campaign in practice involving any group other than Hamas. The other 12 groups may well have endorsed Hamas' campaign after the fact. But in that case the lead which DEFINES the campaign is in error.

Also, on a different subject, I cannot find any reference to "all options are open" as part of any Hamas declaration. I only found it as an answer to a specific question posed to them, which is more like saying "no comment" Interferometrist (talk) 22:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The term "militancy" tends to dehumanize those who carry out peaceful demonstrations using assault rifles. How about "activism campaign"? I realize that there are those who think that the term "activism" is too strong and even racist, but I can't think of another euphemism that would work. Perhaps we should create a new term, one that has no political or racist connotations. What about "pineapple"? Call it a "Pinappleism Campaign" and those who take part, "pinappleists." On the other hand, some people are bigoted against pineapples. Perhaps we can create an entirely new word from scratch, call it a "Bfxtlprqpism Campaign" and those who take part, "Bfxtlprqpists." Still too strong? On the other hand, it might offend people from the planet Bfxtlprqp, should it exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.200.35 (talk) 20:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)